More in Multimedia

Opinion | Op-eds

Faculty support students in sexual assault policy change

PROTEST
|
The past few months have seen a massive increase in student activism surrounding sexual assault on campus, including the filing of a federal complaint and activism that has generated national coverage.

This piece was originally submitted to Spectator on May 9 and has not been taken from other postings of this letter.

To the Columbia Community:

We were shocked to learn of the Title IX, Title II, and Clery Act complaints filed against Columbia on April 24. We applaud the bravery and fortitude of the students who filed these complaints.

As troubling as it is to learn about the level of sexual misconduct on campus, we are even more dismayed by Columbia’s response to these problems. It is clear that University policies and enforcement are insufficient and even harmful to creating an environment where students feel safe and supported. We, as a community, must do more to make this school a place where all students are safe from violence. We must do better.

As faculty members of the University, we demand an environment that is safe for every member of our community, regardless of their gender. Having an environment where everyone feels comfortable and secure is essential for learning.

We want students who have been victims of sexual assault to know they have our support. We commit ourselves to work with our community to change the campus climate so that rape, sexual assault, and violence are not a part of any community member’s experience. And we will ensure that University policies do not just comply with federal requirements, but go further, so that all students experience the kind of support and respect that our community can provide.

To achieve these ends, we demand that the University enact serious and substantial reform with strong student involvement in a transparent process.

We must change the culture here. The brave students who filed a complaint against our University have taken the first step. We stand with them.

Partha ChatterjeeProfessor of Anthropology and Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies

Laura CiolkowskiAdjunct Associate Professor of English and Comparative LiteratureAssociate Director, Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and SexualityAssociate Director, Center for the Study of Social Difference

Pam CobrinSenior Lecturer in EnglishDirector, Writing and Speaking ProgramsBarnard College

Jean CohenNell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Contemporary Civilization in the Core Curriculum, Department of Political Science

Hi! Thanks for asking—normally you'd be correct. We would not let something like this sit around for more time than necessary. However, in this case there was an embargo on the piece, and we decided to publish tonight instead of tomorrow as planned after seeing that Bwog had published the piece.

For those wondering: I'm pretty sure this wasn't circulated to the whole entire faculty of the university. I think it was written by certain professors and sent around through their networks, and shared on a more individual basis. I'm sure that, if other faculty members want to sign on, the professors who wrote it would welcome the additional support, but I wouldn't necessarily read the absence of particular names as the absence of support.

I'm a signer. And this student is correct. The letter did in fact travel by email across faculty social networks which are -- as you might expect -- shaped by their disciplinary locations.

An effort was made to circulate it widely, but at the same time those who began the process could hardly publish it and only then ask who wanted to sign. The point was to release it with evidence that this is a view held by many and when it had reached some substantial number it was thus released.

So: you can take the presence of a signature to indicate support for the views expressed in the letter (we knew what we were signing). But you should NOT assume the absence of any particular signature -- or for that matter the absence of signatures from any particular discipline or department -- to indicate opposition or indifference. You just can't know.

I am also a signer and wanted to co-sign Josh Whitford's comment that not having a signature on the letter should not be taken as lack of support. I got an email asking for a signature on Friday with a note saying it would be submitted on Monday. Many faculty were away from their email, so may have missed the opportunity to make their support visible.

"This piece was originally submitted to Spectator on May 9 and has not been taken from other postings of this letter."

Dear Spec Board: nobody cares that you got it first. Just report the letter cleanly and quickly, that is what people care about. Stop being so self-important, and playing these little journalistic games, because you just open yourself up to criticism (i.e. "Why did you sit on this op-ed for three days?" "How did Bwog scoop you?").

"This piece was originally submitted to Spectator on May 9 and has not been taken from other postings of this letter."

Dear Spec Board: nobody cares that you got it first. Just report the letter cleanly and quickly, that is what people care about. Stop being so self-important, and playing these little journalistic games, because you just open yourself up to criticism (i.e. "Why did you sit on this op-ed for three days?" "How did Bwog scoop you?").

I'm guessing that the clarification is because there was an embargo on the letter that meant that the letter was not supposed to be published in any way before May 12th. "Journalistic games" are pretty fucking important when you want sources to trust you and to be considered a reliable source for consistently true information.

As an alum, I'm really impressed by how CU students have really raised the profile of this issue and generated a real impact on campus, City Hall, and Capitol Hill. Congrats that the faculty are joining in too. It's smart advocacy and organizing that takes advantage of the CU platform to make real change.

As a dad, however, I don't understand why attention is strictly focused on the Columbia's disciplinary system. Suspension and expulsion aren't sufficient punishment for the rapists. Shouldn't they be aggressively pursued through the criminal justice system? Jail seems a better consequence than sending them home to Westchester. Even in an imperfect judicial system, arrests without convictions require disclosure to future employers and they will be able to see patterns of criminal behavior. Shouldn't we expect a response from the NYPD and the Manhattan DA too?

Because charging someone of rape is a serious accusation, and Columbia disciplinary process is not adequate and protects neither the accuser nor the accused. Young men who are accused of "rape" are immediately kicked out (unless there is a strong evidence that the accuser is lying), not allowed to be on campus, take classes. How's that for the lack of due process? The accusers are immediately called survivors. They don't want to file claims with the police (because if the real court - most of these accusations wouldn't fly!) - just just want someone to kick these guys out of college based on their WORD. Don't you think that young women should actually feel protected by such policy?

The problem here is two fold: The ever expanding definition of sexual assault and lack of personal responsibility. A few years back I read a piece in Mother Jones that surveyed college women on their drinking habits. Somewhere over 70% said they drank so they would lose their inhibitions about hooking up with guys. They drink too much, have sex with a guy, and the next day while wallowing in shame and regret that they really didn't want to have sex with that guy, they discuss it with their friends and convince themselves that they were 'raped'. There are way too many cases where women described in detail how they were raped just to admit months later that all that was fabricated. Any kind of sexual advances can, now, be reported as "rape". Forceful kissing, touching.... yes call it whatever you want but don't call it rape. There is a deluge of false claims at colleges, and young men are fighting back. See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/the_white_house_joins_the_war_.html#sthash.CmyxYB6d.dpuf

If a woman consents, encourages, delights in a sex act then changes her mind, is this rape? Is the sex before she changed her mind consensual? Is it right for a woman to say all sex is rape when she changed her mind at the end or the next day?

If a woman consents, encourages, delights in a sex act then changes her mind, is this rape? Is the sex before she changed her mind consensual? Is it right for a woman to say all sex is rape when she changed her mind at the end or the next day?

If a woman consents, encourages, delights in a sex act then changes her mind, is this rape? Is the sex before she changed her mind consensual? Is it right for a woman to say all sex is rape when she changed her mind at the end or the next day?

If a woman consents, encourages, delights in a sex act then changes her mind, is this rape? Is the sex before she changed her mind consensual? Is it right for a woman to say all sex is rape when she changed her mind at the end or the next day?